Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 This is a counterpart thread to the one I just started in which I will be presenting quotes from general conference that support and sustain the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. In this thread, you are invited to post quotes from general conference that indicate the Church is moving away from that definition and moving toward the predicted day when the Church will accept and embrace homosexual behavior, allow same-sex "marriage," and solemnize it in the temples. I don't expect there will be anything to contribute to this thread, but who knows? We'll have it as a placeholder just in case. Incidentally, here's a timer reading on that 40-year prediction by which such a change as described above will have occurred: 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 33 minutes and 14 seconds and counting down. 2
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 As we've discussed, there won't be a change from the current definition of marriage anytime soon. So keep your clock running but don't hold your breath. The more important thing to look at is the change in our perspective regarding homosexuality over the past 50 years and consideration of how that might continue to develop in the next 50 years (or less, per your clock). 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) As we've discussed, there won't be a change from the current definition of marriage anytime soon. So keep your clock running but don't hold your breath. Oh, I'm not holding my breath. As I've indicated elsewhere, I celebrate with satisfaction each passing, month, week, day, moment that Church of Jesus Christ has not knuckled under to the changing whims of society. Repeated instances of the subject coming up at general conference are assurances that it won't. The more important thing to look at is the change in our perspective regarding homosexuality over the past 50 years and consideration of how that might continue to develop in the next 50 years (or less, per your clock). If by "change in our perspective," you mean that people today are less inclined to be uncharitable or harsh toward people beset with same-sex attraction, I'm just as happy about that as you are. But that should not be viewed as capitulating to or accepting immorality, which, of course, it is not. ... the next 50 years (or less, per your clock). My clock is based on Dehlin's time frame, which you have supported. It's not going to change anything if you keep moving the deadline back. A half-century from now, sexual immorality will still be sexual immorality. Edited to add: That clock now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes and 13 seconds. Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Oh, I'm not holding my breath. As I've indicated elsewhere, I celebrate with satisfaction each passing, month, week, day, moment that Church of Jesus Christ has not knuckled under to the changing whims of society. Repeated instances of the subject coming up at general conference are assurances that it won't. If by "change in our perspective," you mean that people today are less inclined to be uncharitable or harsh toward people beset with same-sex attraction, I'm just as happy about that as you are. But that should not be viewed as capitulating to or accepting immorality, which, of course, it is not. My clock is based on Dehlin's time frame, which you have supported. It's not going to change anything if you keep moving the deadline back. A half-century from now, sexual immorality will still be sexual immorality. Edited to add: That clock now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes and 13 seconds. I'll still go on record as agreeing with the 40 year timeframe. I wasn't attempting to push back the clock, just a figure of speech. I am also not suggesting that we accept immorality. Never have. I think attitudes certainly have changed which is great. Our understanding and teachings regarding homosexuality have also evolved. But you don't see that, and it's fine.
Gray Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 That clock now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes and 13 seconds. Do you calculate this each time or are you using some kind of application or web program?
Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Do you calculate this each time or are you using some kind of application or web program? I get the impression he has an actual clock app set on his desktop. It's like this. You get to work in the morning, you check your email. Scott gets to work, he checks his clock and smiles because the church still opposes gay marriage. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Do you calculate this each time or are you using some kind of application or web program?I use an app on my iPod touch called Cosmos Countdown Timer. It's free on the App Store.
Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 This is a counterpart thread to the one I just started in which I will be presenting quotes from general conference that support and sustain the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. In this thread, you are invited to post quotes from general conference that indicate the Church is moving away from that definition and moving toward the predicted day when the Church will accept and embrace homosexual behavior, allow same-sex "marriage," and solemnize it in the temples. I don't expect there will be anything to contribute to this thread, but who knows? We'll have it as a placeholder just in case. Incidentally, here's a timer reading on that 40-year prediction by which such a change as described above will have occurred: 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 33 minutes and 14 seconds and counting down. Scott, there's plenty of quotes that give people hope. Take Elder McConkie's "forget everything I said ... " or President Uchtdorf's "leaders have made mistakes in the past." But obviously there is no general conference quote suggesting that the definition of marriage will change any time soon. Perhaps more telling, though, is that, up until June 1978, there were no general conference talks suggesting that the racial priesthood ban would be removed anytime prior to the millennium. PS - I doubt if anyone else will bookmark this post. But I'd appreciate if you would, so that you could come back here and post a mea culpa if your clock turns out to be wrong. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I'll still go on record as agreeing with the 40 year timeframe. I wasn't attempting to push back the clock, just a figure of speech. I am also not suggesting that we accept immorality. Never have. I think attitudes certainly have changed which is great. Our understanding and teachings regarding homosexuality have also evolved. But you don't see that, and it's fine.I don't see it, because it hasn't happened. Homosexual behavior was wrong 50 years ago; it's still wrong today. Perhaps there is more compassion today in helping people deal with/overcome it. As I said, I'm OK with that. By the way, even though you don't expect change any time soon (on that we're agreed), feel free to monitor the conference for any indication that the Church is softening its stance -- about homosexual behavior being wrong and unacceptable or about the redefinition of marriage being unacceptable -- and post it here. That, after all, is the purpose of this thread. Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Popular Post cinepro Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) To keep things in perspective, we should probably look at the rate of change leading up to the previous two biggest changes in Church policy in the last 150 years: OD1 and OD2. If we're sticking with Dehlin's 40 year window, perhaps it would be helpful to look at what kind of indicators where being made in the early 1850's that signaled the coming abandonment of polygamy in 1890, and what kind of talks were being given in General Conference in the 1930's that indicated to Church members that black men would get the priesthood in 1978. Or perhaps it would be more on-point to share quotes from 40 years previous of those two monumental changes where Church leaders clearly and officially indicated that such changes were unlikely to ever happen (in this life), and reinforced the doctrinal basis for the then-current policies of polygamy and priesthood restriction. Because if such statements were being made in the1850's and 1930's, it might help us put any similar comments made this weekend into perspective as to their likelihood of applying 40 years from now. Edited March 31, 2015 by cinepro 9
sethpayne Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 In this thread, you are invited to post quotes from general conference that indicate the Church is moving away from that definition and moving toward the predicted day when the Church will accept and embrace homosexual behavior, allow same-sex "marriage," and solemnize it in the temples. Scott -- I'd love to see a source for those pushing for same-sex marriage in the temple. Can you point me to some examples? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Scott -- I'd love to see a source for those pushing for same-sex marriage in the temple. Can you point me to some examples?I thought that was part of rockpond's expectation; he can correct me if I'm wrong.
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I don't see it, because it hasn't happened. Homosexual behavior was wrong 50 years ago; it's still wrong today. Perhaps there is more compassion today in helping people deal with/overcome it. As I said, I'm OK with that. When you limit it to strictly "homosexual behavior" (which I assume refers to sexual relations) than we agree... no change. But I wasn't limiting it to that. By the way, even though you don't expect change any time soon (on that we're agreed), feel free to monitor the conference for any indication that the Church is softening its stance about homosexual behavior being wrong and unacceptable or about the redefinition of marriage being acceptable and post it here. That, after all, is the purpose of this thread. Yes I get the sardonic nature of your thread. But church leadership is now in a clear period of doubling-down on the current definition of marriage so I absolutely expect to see no indication of a change in stance. And such only supports Dehlin's prediction rather than disprove it.
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I thought that was part of rockpond's expectation; he can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not "pushing" for same-sex marriage in the temple... that would need to come through revelation to the Prophet. Though I would like to see it happen. I think that same-sex marriages and sealings will likely happen someday in the temple though I'm not sure it will be as soon as 40 years (or 39 and change according to Scott's clock). 2
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 PS - I doubt if anyone else will bookmark this post. But I'd appreciate if you would, so that you could come back here and post a mea culpa if your clock turns out to be wrong. I hope that Scott and others who feel so strongly about gay marriage will record those feelings in their journals for their posterity. 2
Gray Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I use an app on my iPod touch called Cosmos Countdown Timer. It's free on the App Store. Neat! In which case, my prediction about you losing interest in your various countdowns in two years may prove to be false.
sethpayne Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I thought that was part of rockpond's expectation; he can correct me if I'm wrong. Ah. I see. Personally I never see that happening. UNLESS, there is a very big new revelation that significantly changes long-standing LDS doctrinal views. I suppose it could happen. But it's along the lines of Lloyd in Dumb & Dumber: ETA: No offense to Rockpond with the above graphic. I too wouldn't object to such a change if that's what the Church wanted to do. But I don't see it as likely. But 40 years is a long time..... P.S. -- Scott, you may want to cut back on your predictions, man. You said that SSM would never be legal in Utah in your lifetime. Just a couple of years before it happened. It's almost like your wishing against something makes it happen! Edited March 31, 2015 by sethpayne 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 I hope that Scott and others who feel so strongly about gay marriage will record those feelings in their journals for their posterity.If I kept a journal, I would likely do so. As it happens, I have published newspaper articles that champion "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, by implication, rules out same-sex "marriage" as being acceptable to God. Those articles are part of the archival record.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Neat! In which case, my prediction about you losing interest in your various countdowns in two years may prove to be false. If it were indeed as labor-intensive as you apparently thought it was, I probably would have lost interest by now. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Yes I get the sardonic nature of your thread. But church leadership is now in a clear period of doubling-down on the current definition of marriage so I absolutely expect to see no indication of a change in stance. And such only supports Dehlin's prediction rather than disprove it.Supports his prediction? I've puzzled over this until my puzzler is sore, and I still don't see how you get support for Dehlin's prediction out of doubling down on opposing redefinition of marriage.
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 If I kept a journal, I would likely do so. As it happens, I have published newspaper articles that champion "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, by implication, rules out same-sex "marriage" as being acceptable to God. Those articles are part of the archival record. I meant your specific belief that the church will never accept gay marriage.
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Supports his prediction? I've puzzled over this until my puzzler is sore, and I still don't see how you get support for Dehlin's prediction out of doubling down on opposing redefinition of marriage. Wow... your puzzler got sore fast. I think it follows the pattern of change.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 P.S. -- Scott, you may want to cut back on your predictions, man. You said that SSM would never be legal in Utah in your lifetime. Just a couple of years before it happened. It's almost like your wishing against something makes it happen! I've already addressed this elsewhere. While I have very recently suffered a great loss of faith in the wisdom and prudence of the federal judiciary, I retain great faith in the Church of Jesus Christ to do what is right and to act in accordance with the will of Him Who founded it and Whose name it bears. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 I meant your specific belief that the church will never accept gay marriage.If only marriage between a man and a woman conforms to God's definition of marriage, it logically follows that His Church will never accept same-sex "marriage."
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 If only marriage between a man and a woman conforms to God's definition of marriage, it logically follows that His Church will never accept same-sex "marriage." As I said... put it in your journal. Let your kids and grandchildren know how you felt. Then they'll know that their father & grandfather wasn't swayed.
Recommended Posts